Carpet cleaner charged

NZ Herald reports:

A tradesman allegedly caught by TV3 cameras committing an indecent act at a customer’s home was granted name suppression when he appeared in court today.

The carpet cleaner at the centre of a hidden camera sting by the Target consumer affairs show appeared in Manukau District Court this morning on charges of burglary and wilfully accessing a computer.

He was bailed to reappear on June 6, TV3 reported.

What is interesting is that he has been charged for what some might say are the less vile offences, yet there is no charge for masturbating on a woman’s underwear.

But while vile, what charges could be laid? It can’t be indecent exposure as he was not in public. Any lawyers out there want to opine on what charges could be laid for what he did?